Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 49

# Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.

Santha Kumar

## 7.4 Tower Design

Once the external loads acting on the tower are determined, one proceeds

with an analysis of the forces in various members with a view to fixing up their

sizes. Since axial force is the only force for a truss element, the member has to

be designed for either compression or tension. When there are multiple load

## conditions, certain members may be subjected to both compressive and tensile

alternate nature of forces; hence these members are to be designed for both

compression and tension. The total force acting on any individual member under

the normal condition and also under the broken- wire condition is multiplied by

the corresponding factor of safety, and it is ensured that the values are within the

## permissible ultimate strength of the particular steel used.

Bracing systems
Once the width of the tower at the top and also the level at which the

batter should start are determined, the next step is to select the system of

bracings. The following bracing systems are usually adopted for transmission line

towers.

## Single web system (Figure 7.29a)

It comprises either diagonals and struts or all diagonals. This system is

particularly used for narrow-based towers, in cross-arm girders and for portal

type of towers. Except for 66 kV single circuit towers, this system has little

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Double web or Warren system (Figure 7.29b)

This system is made up of diagonal cross bracings. Shear is equally

distributed between the two diagonals, one in compression and the other in

tension. Both the diagonals are designed for compression and tension in order to

permit reversal of externally applied shear. The diagonal braces are connected at

their cross points. Since the shear perface is carried by two members and critical

## length is approximately half that of a corresponding single web system. This

system is used for both large and small towers and can be economically adopted

throughout the shaft except in the lower one or two panels, where diamond or

## Pratt system (Figure 7.29c)

This system also contains diagonal cross bracings and, in addition, it has

horizontal struts. These struts are subjected to compression and the shear is

taken entirely by one diagonal in tension, the other diagonal acting like a

redundant member.

It is often economical to use the Pratt bracings for the bottom two or three

## Portal system (Figure 7.29d)

The diagonals are necessarily designed for both tension and compression

and, therefore, this arrangement provides more stiffness than the Pratt system.

The advantage of this system is that the horizontal struts are supported at mid

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

Like the Pratt system, this arrangement is also used for the bottom two or

three panels in conjuction with the Warren system for the other panels. It is

Where

## successive holes in the line of holes under consideration,

g = transverse spacing (gauge), that is, the distance between the same two

## consecutive holes as for p, and

d = diameter of holes.

For holes in opposite legs of angles, the value of 'g' should be the sum of the

gauges from the back of the angle less the thickness of the angle.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Net effective area for angle sections in tension

In the case of single angles in tension connected by one leg only, the net

## effective section of the angle is taken as

Aeff = A + Bk (7.28)

Where

1
k=
B
1 + 0.35
A

1
k=
B
1 + 0.2
A

## relatively large deformations perpendicular to the centre line, under certain

criticallol1ding conditions.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## equilibrium. If it is displaced slightly by lateral forces, it regains its original

position on the removal of the force. When the axial load P on the column

reaches a certain critical value Pcr, the column is in a state of neutral equilibrium.

When it is displaced slightly from its original position, it remains in the displaced

position. If the force P exceeds the critical load Pcr, the column reaches an

unstable equilibrium. Under these circum- stances, the column either fails or

## undergoes large lateral deflections.

Table 7.30 Effective slenderness ratios for members with different end
restraint

Type of member KL / r
a) Leg sections or joint members bolted at connections in both faces. L/r
b) Members with eccentric loading at both ends of the unsupported panel
L/r
with value of L / r up to and including 120
c) Members with eccentric loading at one end and normal eccentricities at
30+0.75 L/r
the other end of unsupported panel with values of L/r up to and including 120
d) Members with normal framing eccentricities at both ends of the
60+0.5 L/r
unsupported panel for values of L/r up to and including 120
e) Members unrestrained against rotation at both end of the unsupported
L/r
panel for values of L/r from 120 to 200.
f) Members partially restrained against rotation at one end of the
28.6+0.762 L/r
unsupported panel for values of L/r over 120 but up to and including 225
g) members partially restrained against rotation at both ends of unsupported
46.2+0.615 L/r
panel for values of L/r over 120 up to and including 250

Slenderness ratio

## designing. The resistance of any member to bending is governed by its flexural

rigidity EI where I =Ar2. Every structural member will have two principal moments

of inertia, maximum and minimum. The strut will buckle in the direction governed

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Imin = Armin2 (7.29)

Where rmin is the least radius of gyration. The ratio of effective length of

## member to the appropriate radius of gyration is known as the slenderness ratio.

Normally, in the design procedure, the slenderness ratios for the truss elements

## are limited to a maximum value.

IS: 802 (Part 1)-1977 specifies the following limiting values of the

Effective length

## the two ends.

The effective length is defined as 'KL' where L is the length from centre to

centre of intersection at each end of the member, with reference to given axis,

## and K is a non-dimensional factor which accounts for different fixity conditions at

the ends, and hence may be called the restraint factor. The effective slenderness

ratio KL/r of any unbraced segment of the member of length L is given in Table

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Figure 7.30 Nomogram showing the variation of the effective slenderness

ratio kl / rL / r and the corresponding unit stress

## Figure 7.30 shows the variation of effective slenderness ratio KL / r with L

/ r of the member for the different cases of end restraint for leg and bracing

members.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

Table 7.31 shows the identification of cases mentioned in Table 7.30 and

Figure 7.30 for leg and bracing members normally adopted. Eight different cases

## of bracing systems are discussed in Table 7.31.

SI. Member Method of Rigidity of joint L/r ratio Limiting Categorisation KL/r
4 5 of L/r
1 2 3 6 7 8

0 to
Case (a) L/r
120
1 Concentric No restraint at ends L/rw

120 to
Case (e) L/r
150

L/rxx or
0 to
L/ryy or Case (a) L/r
120
0.5L/rw
2 Concentric No restraint at ends
L/rxx or
120 to
L/ryy or Case (e) L/r
150
0.5L/rw

unsupported panel-no 0 to 60
L/rw Case (d)
restraint at ends 120 +0.5L/r

120 to
L/rw Case (e) L/r
200

3 eccentric

120 to 46.2 +
L/rw Case (g)
250 0.615L/r

max of
4 concentric 0 to
No restraint at ends L/rxx or Case (b) L/r
120
L/ryy

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

max of
120 to
L/rxx or Case (e) L/r
200
L/ryy

max of
120 to 46.2 +
L/rxx or Case (g)
250 0.615L/r
L/ryy

concentric
at ends and
eccentric at
0.5L/ryy 0 to 30 +
intermediate Case (e)
or L/rxx 120 0.75L/r
joints in
both
directions

5
concentric
at ends and 0.5L/ryy 0 to
Case (a) L/r
intermediate or L/rxx 120
joints

Multiple bolt
concentric connections Partial 0.5L/ryy 120 to 46.2 +
Case (g)
at ends restraints at ends and or L/rxx 250 0.615L/r
intermediate joints
0.5L/rw
Single bolt 0 to 30 +
or Case (c)
eccentric No restraint at ends 120 0.75L/r
0.75L/rxx
(single
angle) 0.5L/rw
Single bolt 120 to
or Case (e) L/r
6 No restraint at ends 200
0.75L/rxx
Multiple bolt
connections 0.5L/rw
concentric 120 to 46.2 +
Partial restraints at or Case (g)
(Twin angle) 250 0.615L/r
ends 0.75L/rxx
and intermediate joints
eccentric
7 (single Single or multiple bolt 0.5L/rw 0 to 60 +
Case (g)
angle) connection or L/rxx 120 0.5L/r

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Single bolt connection,

no restraint at ends 0.5L/rw 120 to
Case (e) L/r
and at intermediate or L/rxx 200
joints.

## Multiple bolt at ends

and single bolt at 0.5L/rw
intermediate joints 120 to 28.6 +
Case (f)
225 .762L/r
Multiple bolt at ends
and at intermediate 120 to 46.2 +
L/rxx Case (g)
joints Partial restraints 250 0.615L/r
at both ends
Partial restraints at
0.5L/rw 120 to 46.2 +
ends and at Case (g)
or L/rxx 250 0.615L/r
intermediate joints
Single or multiple bolt 0.5L/ryy 0 to
Case (a) L/r
connection or L/rxx 120
Single bolt connection,
no restraint at ends 0.5L/ryy 120 to
Case (e) L/r
and at intermediate or L/rxx 200
joints.
eccentric Multiple bolt at ends
8 (single 120 to 28.6 +
and single bolt at 0.5L/ryy Case (f)
angle) 200 .762L/r
intermediate joints
Multiple bolt
120 to 46.2 +
connection Partial L/rxx Case (g)
250 0.615L/r
restraints at both ends
Partial restraints at
0.5L/ryy 120 to 46.2 +
ends and at Case (g)
or L/rxx 250 0.615L/r
intermediate joints

and end restraint conditions

Euler determined the failure load for a perfect strut of uniform cross-

section with hinged ends. The critical buckling load for this strut is given by:

π2 EI π2 EA
Pcr = = (7.30)
L2 ⎛L⎞
2
⎜ ⎟
⎝r⎠

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## At values less than π2 EL/L2 the strut is in a stable equilibrium. At values of

P greater than π2 EL/L2 the strut is in a condition of unstable equilibrium and any

## small disturbance produces final collapse. This is, however, a hypothetical

situation because all struts have some initial imperfections and thus the load on

the strut can never exceed π2 EL/L2. If the thrust P is plotted against the lateral

## In this figure, the lateral deflections occurring after reaching critical

buckling load are shown, that is Pcr ≥ π2 EI / L2 , When the strut has small

## failure before P = π2 EL/L2 is reached (Figure 7.31 (b))

Empirical formulae

column:

## 1. Yield stress of material

2. Initial imperfectness

3. (L/r) ratio

4. Factor of safety

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Taking these parameters into consideration, the following empirical

formulae have been used by different authorities for estimating the safe

## 1. Straight line formula

2. Parabolic formula

3. Rankine formula

## 4. Secant or Perry's formula

These formulae have been modified and used in the codes evolved in

different countries.

IS: 802 (Part I) -1977 gives the following formulae which take into account

## For the case b / t ≤ 13 (Figure 7.30 (c)),

⎧ ⎛ KL ⎞ ⎫
2
⎪ ⎜ ⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎝ r ⎠ ⎪
Fa = ⎨2600 − ⎬ kg / cm
2
(7.31)
⎪ 12 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ ⎭

Where KL / r ≤ 120

20 x106
Fa = 2
kg / cm 2 (7.32)
⎛ KL ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ r ⎠

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

590000
Fcr = 2
kg / cm 2
⎛b⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝t⎠

Where

## b = distance from the edge of fillet to the extreme fibre, and

t = thickness of material.

Equations (7.31) and (7.32) indicate the failure load when the member

buckles and Equations (7.33) and (7.34) indicate the failure load when the flange

## of the member fails.

Figure 7.30 gives the strut formula for the steel with a yield stress of 2600

kg/sq.cm. with respect to member failure. The upper portion of the figure shows

the variation of unit stress with KL/r and the lower portion variation of KL/r with

L/r. This figure can be used as a nomogram for estimating the allowable stress

on a compression member.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## An example illustrating the procedure for determining the effective length,

the corresponding slenderness ratio, the permissible unit stress and the

Figure 7.31

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

Example

Figure 7.31 (d) shows a twin angle bracing system used for the horizontal

## member of length L = 8 m. In order to reduce the effective length of member AB,

single angle CD has been connected to the system. AB is made of two angles

rxx = 4.38 cm

ryy = 3.05 cm

## Double bolt connections are made at A, Band C. Hence it can be assumed

that the joints are partially restrained. The system adopted is given at SL. No.8 in

## = 0.5 x 800/3.05 or 800/4.38

= 131.14 or 182.64

## The governing value of L/r is therefore182.64, which is the larger of the

two values obtained. This value corresponds to case (g) for which KL/r

= 46.2 + 0.615L/r

= 158.52

Note that the value of KL/r from the curve is also 158.52 (Figure 7.30).

The corresponding stress from the curve above is 795 kg/cm2, which is shown

dotted in the nomogram. The value of unit stress can also be calculated from

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

20 x106
Fa = 2
kg / cm 2
⎛ KL ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ r ⎠

= 795 kg/cm2.

F = 38.06 x 795

= 30,257 kg

## 7.4.2 Computer-aided design

Two computer-aided design methods are in vogue, depending on the

computer memory. The first method uses a fixed geometry (configuration) and

minimizes the weight of the tower, while the second method assumes the

variations.

## methods of structural design of transmission towers. Recent advances in

optimisation in structural design have also been incorporated into the design of

such towers.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

members is influenced by their position in relation to the other members and the

end connection conditions. The leg sections which carry different stresses at

each panel may be assigned different sizes at various levels; but consideration of

the large number of splices involved indicates that it is usually more economical

and convenient, even though heavier, to use the same section for a number of

## In the selection of structural members, the designer is guided by his past

experience gained from the behavior of towers tested in the test station or

## actually in service. At certain critical locations, the structural members are

provided with a higher margin of safety, one example being the horizontal

members where the slope of the tower changes and the web members of panels

## are immediately below the neckline.

Optimisation
Many designs are possible to satisfy the functional requirements and a

trial and error procedure may be employed to choose the optimal design.

## Selection of the best geometry of a tower or the member sizes is examples of

optimal design procedures. The computer is best suited for finding the optimal

## solutions. Optimisation then becomes an automated design procedure, providing

the optimal values for certain design quantities while considering the design

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

based upon internally stored information, are not mutually exclusive, but

## complement each other. As the techniques of interactive computer-aided design

develop, the need to employ standard routines for automated design of structural

## relating to these variables. An initial guess-solution is used as the starting point

for a systematic search for better designs and the process of search is

## terminated when certain criteria are satisfied.

Those quantities defining a structural system that are fixed during the

## automated design are- called pre-assigned parameters or simply parameters and

those quantities that are not pre-assigned are called design variables. The

design variables cover the material properties, the topology of the structure, its

geometry and the member sizes. The assignment of the parameters as well as

the definition of their values is made by the designer, based on his experience.

Any set of values for the design variables constitutes a design of the

structure. Some designs may be feasible while others are not. The restrictions

that must be satisfied in order to produce a feasible design are called constraints.

There are two kinds of constraints: design constraints and behavior constraints.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Where k is the number of equality constraints.

Example
The three bar truss example first solved by Schmit is shown in Figure

7.32. The applied loadings and the displacement directions are also shown in this

figure.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

g1 ≡ − X1 ≤ 0
g 2 ≡ −X 2 ≤ 0

## 2. Behaviour constraints: The three members of the truss should be safe,

that is, the stresses in them should be less than the allowable stresses in tension

## g3 ≡ σ1 − 2, 000 ≤ 0 Tensile stress limitation in member 1

g 4 ≡ −σ1 − 1,500 ≤ 0

g5 ≡ σ2 − 2, 000 ≤ 0
g 6 ≡ −σ2 − 1,500 ≤ 0
Compressive stress limitation in member 2 and so on
g 7 ≡ σ3 − 2, 000 ≤ 0
g8 ≡ −σ3 − 1,500 ≤ 0

## is obtained as {s} = [E] [K]-1[F] which can be shown as

⎛ X 2 + 2X1 ⎞
σ1 = 2000 ⎜
⎜ 2X X + 2X 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ 1 2 1 ⎠
⎛ 2X1 ⎞
σ2 = 2000 ⎜
⎜ 2X X + 2X 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ 1 2 1 ⎠
⎛ X2 ⎞
σ1 = 2000 ⎜
⎜ 2X X + 2X 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ 1 2 1 ⎠

4. Constraint design inequalities: Only constraints g3, g5, g8 will affect the

## design. Since these constraints can now be expressed in terms of design

variables X1 and X2 using the stress force relationships derived above, they can

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

be represented as the area on one side of the straight line shown in the two-

## dimensional plot (Figure 7.32 (b)).

Design space
Each design variable X1, X2 ...is viewed as one- dimension in a design

space and a particular set of variables as a point in this space. In the general

## case of n variables, we have an n-dimensioned space. In the example where we

have only two variables, the space reduces to a plane figure shown in Figure

7.32 (b). The arrows indicate the inequality representation and the shaded zone

## unconstrained design and the one falling on the boundary is a constrained

design.

Objective function
An infinite number of feasible designs are possible. In order to find the

best one, it is necessary to form a function of the variables to use for comparison

## that will minimise a certain given objective function:

Z = F ({X}) 7.35(c)

function, we get

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

The locus of all points satisfying F ({X}) = constant, forms a straight line in

## a two-dimensional space. In this general case of n-dimensional space, it will form

a surface. For each value of constraint, a different straight line is obtained. Figure

7.32 (b) shows the objective function contours. Every design on a particular

contour has the same volume or weight. It can be seen that the minimum value

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## equations in fewer variables. Successive reanalysis of the structure for improved

sets of constraints will tend towards the solution. Different re-analysis methods

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

can be used, the iterative methods being the most attractive in the case of

towers.

Optimality criteria
An interesting approach in optimization is a process known as optimality

criteria. The approach to the optimum is based on the assumption that some

## fully stressed design where it is assumed that, in an optimal structure, each

member is subjected to its limiting stress under at least one loading condition.

The optimality criteria procedures are useful for transmission lines and

## towers because they constitute an adequate compromise to obtain practical and

efficient solutions. In many studies, it has been found that the shape of the

objective function around the optimum is flat, which means that an experienced

designer can reach solutions, which are close to the theoretical optimum.

Mathematical programming
It is difficult to anticipate which of the constraints will be critical at the

## approximations are often required to be efficient on large practical problems such

as tower optimisation.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## optimisation, the linear programming method is widely adopted in structural

engineering practice because of its simplicity. The objective function, which is the

## minimisation of weight, is linear and a set of constraints, which can be expressed

by linear equations involving the unknowns (area, moment of inertia, etc. of the

members), are used for solving the problems. This can be mathematically

expressed as follows.

## x2.....xn such that the objective function

Z = C1 x1 + C2 x2 + ....Cn xn

## a11 x1 + a12 x 2 + ..........a1n x n ≤ b1

a 21 x1 + a 22 x 2 + ..........a 2n x n ≤ b 2
.
(7.36)
.
.
a m1 x1 + a m2 x 2 + ..........a mn x n ≤ b m

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## The simplex algorithm is now available in the form of a standard computer

software package, which uses the matrix representation of the variables and

## The equation (7.36) is expressed in the matrix form as follows:

⎧ x1 ⎫
⎪x ⎪
⎪⎪ 2 ⎪⎪
Find X = ⎨ − ⎬ which minimises the objective function
⎪− ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪⎩ x n ⎪⎭
n
f ( x ) = ∑ Ci x i (7.37)
i −1

## subject to the constraints,

n
∑ a jk x k = b j , j = 1, 2,...m
(7.38)
k −1
andx i ≥ 0, i = 1, 2,...n

## The structure is divided into a number of groups and the analysis is

carried out group wise. Then the member forces are determined. The critical

members are found out from each group. From the initial design, the objective

function and the constraints are framed. Then, by adopting the fully stressed

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

design (optimality criteria) method, the linear programming problem is solved and

the optimal solution found out. In each group, every member is designed for the

fully stressed condition and the maximum size required is assigned for all the

members in that group. After completion of the design, one more analysis and

design routine for the structure as a whole is completed for alternative cross-

sections.

Example
A 220 k V double circuit tangent tower is chosen for study. The basic

structure, section plan at various levels and the loading conditions are tentatively

fixed. The number of panels in the basic determinate structure is 15 and the

number of members is 238. Twenty standard sections have been chosen in the

increasing order of weight. The members have been divided into eighteen

groups, such as leg groups, diagonal groups and horizontal groups, based on

## various panels of the tower. For each group a section is specified.

considered. From the vertical and horizontal lengths of each panel, the lengths of

the members are calculated and the geometry is fixed. For the given loading

conditions, the forces in the various members are computed, from which the

actual stresses are found. These are compared with allowable stresses and the

most stressed member (critical) is found out for each group. Thereafter, an initial

## stressed up to an allowable limit. This is given as the initial solution to simplex

method, from which the objective function, namely, the weight of the tower, is

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

In the given solution, steel structural angles of weights ranging from 5.8

kg/m to 27.20 kg/m are utilised. On the basis of the fully stressed design,

structural sections of 3.4 kg/m to 23.4 kg/m are indicated and the corresponding

weight is 5,398 kg. After the optimal solution, the weight of the tower is 4,956 kg,

## In Method 1, only the member sizes were treated as variables whereas

the geometry was assumed as fixed. Method 2 treats the geometry also as a

variable and gets the most preferred geometry. The geometry developed by the

computer results in the minimum weight of tower for any practically acceptable

## optimum structural design, it is obvious that the use of a computer is essential.

The algorithm used for optimum structural design is similar to that given by

## Samuel L. Lipson which presumes that an initial feasible configuration is

available for the structure. The structure is divided into a number of groups and

upper limits and the lower limits on the design variables, namely, the joint

coordinates are fixed. Then (k-1) new configurations are generated randomly as

i = 1, 2 ...n

j = 1, 2 ...k

## where k is the total number of configurations in the complex, usually larger

than (n + 1), where n is the number of design variables and rij is the random

number for the ith coordinate of the jth point, the random numbers having a

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

uniform distribution over the interval 0 to 1 and ui is the upper limit and Li is the

## Thus, the complex containing k number of feasible solutions is generated

and all these configurations will satisfy the explicit constraints, namely, the upper

and lower bounds on the design variables. Next, for all these k configurations,

analysis and fully stressed designs are carried out and their corresponding total

weights determined. Since the fully stressed design concept is an eco nomical

and practical design, it is used for steel area optimisation. Every area

optimisation problem is associated with more than one analysis and design. For

the analysis of the truss, the matrix method described in the previous chapter has

been used. Therefore, all the generated configurations also satisfy the implicit

## constraints, namely, the allowable stress constraints.

From the value of the objective function (total weight of the structure) of k

configurations, the vector, which yields the maximum weight, is searched and

discarded, and the centroid c of each joint of the k-1 configurations is determined

from

1 ⎧⎪ ⎫⎪
x ic =
K − 1 ⎪ j−1
( )
⎨K ∑ x ij − x iw ⎬ (7.40)
⎩ ⎭⎪

i = 1, 2, 3 ... n

in which xic and xiw are the ith coordinates of the centroid c and the discarded

point w.

Then a new point is generated by reflecting the worst point through the

centroid, xic

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

(7.41)

## This new point is first examined to satisfy the explicit constraints. If it

exceeds the upper or lower bound value, then the value is taken as the

corresponding limiting value, namely, the upper or lower bound. Now the area

optimisation is carried out for the newly generated configuration and the

functional value (weight) is determined. If this functional value is better than the

## developing the new configuration is repeated as mentioned earlier. Otherwise,

the newly generated point is moved halfway towards the centroid of the

remaining points and the area optimisation is repeated for the new configuration.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

This process is repeated over a fixed number of iterations and at the end of every

iteration, the weight and the corresponding configuration are printed out, which

will show the minimum weight achievable within the limits (l and u) of the

configuration.

Example
The example chosen for the optimum structural design is a 220 k V

double-circuit angle tower. The tower supports one ground wire and two circuits

containing three conductors each, in vertical configuration, and the total height of

the tower is 33.6 metres. The various load conditions are shown in Figure 7.33.

The bracing patterns adopted are Pratt system and Diamond system in

the portions above and below the bottom-most conductor respectively. The initial

feasible configuration is shown on the top left corner of Figure 7.33. Except x, y

## and z coordinates of the conductor and the z coordinates of the foundation

points, all the other joint coordinates are treated as design variables. The tower

## feasible configuration. Random numbers required for the generation of these

configurations are fed into the comJ7llter as input. One set containing 26 random

numbers with uniform distribution over the interval 0 to 1 are supplied for each

design variable. Figure 7.34 and Figure 7.35 show the node numbers and

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## The example contains 25 design variables, namely, the x and y

coordinates of the nodes, except the conductor support points and the z

## coordinates of the support nodes (foundations) of the tower. 25 different sets of

random numbers, each set containing 26 numbers, are read for 25 design

## variables. An initial set of27 configuration is generated and the number of

iterations for the development process is restricted to 30. The weight of the tower

5,648 kg.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

Figure 7.37

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Figure 7.38 Variation of tower weight with base width

Figure 7.39 Tower geometry describing key joints and joints obtained from
key joints

## This weight can further be reduced by adopting the configuration now

obtained as the initial configuration and repeating the search by varying the

## controlling coordinates x and z. For instance, in the present example, by varying

the x coordinate, the tower weight has been reduced to 5,345 kg and the

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## variation of tower weight with base width.

on transmission lines, and the consideration of the line as a whole with towers,

## foundations, conductors and hardware, forming interdependent elements of the

total sys- tem with different levels of safety to ensure a preferred sequence of

failure, are all directed towards achieving rational behaviour under various

## uncertainties at minimum transmission line cost. Such a study may be treated as

a global optimisation of the line cost, which could also include an examination of

## alternative uses of various types of towers in a family, materials to be employed

and the limits to which different towers are utilised as discrete variables and the

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Figure 7.40 Flowchart for the development of tower geometry in the

OPSTAR program

The general practice is to fix the geometry of the tower and then arrive at

the loads for design purposes based on which the member sizes are determined.

## This practice, however, suffers from the following disadvantages:

1. The tower weight finally arrived at may be different from the assumed

design weight.

2. The wind load on tower calculated using assumed sections may not

strictly correspond to the actual loads arrived at on the final sections adopted.

3. The geometry assumed may not result in the economical weight of tower.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## 4. The calculation of wind load on the tower members is a tedious process.

Most of the computer software packages available today do not enable the

designer to overcome the above drawbacks since they are meant essentially to

## Figure 7.41 Flowchart for the solution sequence (opstar programme)

In Electricite de France (EDF), the OPSTAR program has been used for

## developing economical and reliable tower designs. The OPSTAR program

optimises the tower member sizes for a fixed configuration and also facilitates the

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## development of new configurations (tower outlines), which will lead to the

minimum weight of towers. The salient features of the program are given below:

## Geometry: The geometry of the tower is described by the coordinates of the

nodes. Only the coordinates of the key nodes (8 for a tower in Figure 7.39)

constitute the input. The computer generates the other coordinates, making use

## of symmetry as well as interpolation of the coordinates of the nodes between the

key nodes. This simplifies and minimises data input and aids in avoiding data

input errors.

## analysis is performed for optimisation.

Description of the program: The first part of the program develops the

geometry (coordinates) based on data input. It also checks the stability of the

nodes and corrects the unstable nodes. The flow chart for this part is given in

Figure 7.40.

The second part of the program deals with the major part of the solution

process. The input data are: the list of member sections from tables in

handbooks and is based on availability; the loading conditions; and the boundary

conditions.

## The solution sequence is shown in Figure 7.41. The program is capable of

being used for either checking a tower for safety or for developing a new tower

design. The output from the program includes tower configuration; member sizes;

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

conditions.

## 7.4.4 Tower accessories

Designs of important tower accessories like Hanger, Step bolt, Strain

plate; U-bolt and D-shackle are covered in this section. The cost of these tower

accessories is only a very small fraction of the S overall tower cost, but their

failure will render the tower functionally ineffective. Moreover, the towers have

## many redundant members whereas the accessories are completely determinate.

These accessories will not allow any load redistribution, thus making failure

## imminent when they are overloaded. Therefore, it is preferable to have larger

factors of safety associated with the tower accessories than those applicable to

towers.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## are given below:

Transverse 480kg 250kg
Vertical 590kg 500kg
Longitudinal - 2,475kg

## Area = p x (21)2 / 4 x 100 = 3.465 sq.cm.

Maximum allowable tensile stress for the steel used = 3,600 kg/cm2

## Allowable load = 3,600 x 3.465

= 12,474 kg.

Dimensions
bolt dia dia thickness radius length length across m
dia ds dk k (app) flats
r b s

l
Metric Serious (dimensions in mm before galvanising)
+1.10 +2 +1 +3 +5 +0
16 m 16 16 35 6 3 175 60 24 13 0.55
-0.43 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0.84

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

Bolts Nuts
2
1. Tensile strength - 400 N/mm min. 1. Proof load stress - 400 N/mm2
2. Brinell Hardness- HB 114/209 2. Brinell Hardness- HB 302 max
3. Cantilever load test - with 150kg

Figure 7.43 Dimensions and mechanical properties of step bolts and nuts

= 446kg.

## 3. Vertical load = 500 kg.

Total = 3,421kg.

It is unlikely that all the three loads will add up to produce the tension in

the vertical leg. 100 percent effect of the vertical load and components of

longitudinal and transverse load will be acting on the critical leg to produce

## maximum force. In accordance with the concept of making the design

conservative, the design load has been assumed to be the sum of the three and

hence safe

## Step bolt (Figure 7.43)

Special mild steel hot dip galvanised bolts called step bolts with two

hexagonal nuts each, are used to gain access to the top of the tower structure.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

The total uniformly distributed load over the fixed length = 100 kg

(assumed).

= 1,616 kg/cm2

## Assuming critical strength of the high tensile steel = 3,600 kg/cm2,

factor of safety = 3,600 / 1,616 = 2.23, which is greater than 2, and hence

safe.

Step bolts are subjected to cantilever load test to withstand the weight of

man (150kg).

## Strain plate (Figure 7.44)

The typical loadings on a strain plate for a 132 kV double-circuit tower are

given below:

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Actually the component of the transverse load in a direction parallel to the

line of fixation should be taken into account, but it is safer to consider the full

= 257.3 kg/cm2

## Check for combined stress

The general case for a tie, subjected to bending and tension, is checked

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

fb ft
+ ≤1 (7.36)
Fb FT

reduces to

= 3.325 sq.cm.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Figure 7.45 U-bolt

The loadings in a U-bolt for a typical 66 kV double circuit tower are given

below:

NC BWC

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

= 67.91 kg/cm2

= 0.804

Hence safe.

## Bending moment = 982 x 5 = 4,910 kg.cm

2
⎛ πd 4 πd 2 ⎞
I xx =⎜ + x 2.52 ⎟ = 25.77cm 4
⎜ 64 4 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

y = 2.5 + 0.8

= 1,300 kg/cm2

fb ft
+ ≤1
Fb Ft

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

Hence safe.

## Bearing stress = (108+227+982) / 1.75 x 0.5

= 1,505.14 kg/cm2

Hence safe.

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

## Figure 7.46 D-Shackle

The loadings for a D-shackle for a 132 kV single circuit tower are given

below:

NC BWC

## Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar

Normal condition
Area of one leg = π / 4 x (1.6) = 2.01 sq.cm.

Assuming the total load to be the sum of vertical and transverse loads

= 597 + 591

= 1,188

## Factor of safety = 2,500 / 295.5 = 8.46

597
Shearing stress in the bolt =
π 2
x2
4

= 190 kg/cm2

## Factory of safety = 2,300 / 190 = 12.1

Broken-wire condition
Assuming the total load to be sum of the loads listed for broken-wire

condition,

= 707.711 kg/cm2

## Factor of safety = 2,500 / 707.7 = 3.53

2,845
Shearing stress in the bolt =
π
2 x x ( 2)
2
4

= 452.8

Hence safe.